Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/6] net: dsa: motorcomm: refactor registration path for upcoming switch families

[Kyle Switch <kyle.switch@motor-comm.com>]

On 9/5/26 01:03, David Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 5:54 PM Kyle Switch <kyle.switch@motor-comm.com> wrote:
>> +               .name = "YT921X",
> nit: We usually stylize it with "YT921x".
Ans: okay,will be fixed in next version.
>
>> +       if (major == YT9215_MAJOR || major == YT9218_MAJOR)
>> +               mode = YT921X;
>> +
>> +       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(yt92xx_series_info_table); ++i)
>> +               if (yt92xx_series_info_table[i].mode == mode)
>> +                       return &yt92xx_series_info_table[i];
> Redundant if you use both indexed assignment and lookup routine, since
> you know the index already.
>
>>   static const struct of_device_id yt921x_of_match[] = {
>> -       { .compatible = "motorcomm,yt9215" },
>> -       {}
>> +       {
>> +               .compatible = "motorcomm,yt9215",
>> +               .data = &yt92xx_series_info_table[YT921X],
> Redundant if you use both runtime identification and the match data.
> Also I'm concerned with early IO operations, although I didn't see any
> incorrectness here.

Ans: we have considered this issue before. in the next version, we

will consider whether to do it via chip_detect() or using indexed

assignment. From your suggestion, what are the side effects of each

approach and which of the two approaches do you recommend?

>
>> +enum yt92xx_mode {
>> +       YT921X,
>> +       YT922X,
>> +       YT_MAX,
>> +};
> nit: Use prefix/suffix like YT92XX_MODE_YT921X or YT921X_SERIES to
> avoid too broad names and future name collision.
Ans: okay, will be fixed in next version.
>>   struct yt921x_priv {
>>          struct dsa_switch ds;
>>
>> +       const struct yt92xx_series_info *series_info;
>>          const struct yt921x_info *info;
> nit: Better to use const struct yt92xx_series *series for simplicity.
Ans: okay.